Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30901053›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2019

Effect of Financial Incentives on Patient Use of Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Shivan J Mehta, Rebecca S Pepe, Nicole B Gabler, Mounika Kanneganti, Catherine Reitz, Chelsea Saia, Joseph Teel, David A Asch, Kevin G Volpp, Chyke A Doubeni

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02594150 (Single Center Randomized Pilot Study Of Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02594150 nacompletednot on this map

Single Center Randomized Pilot Study Of Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2015 to 2018Enrolled897ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsFinancial Incentive
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Effect of Behavioral Economic Incentives for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Randomized Trial.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2021
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Study design of BETTER-BP: Behavioral economics trial to enhance regulation of blood pressure.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Shivan J MehtaDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Rebecca S PepeDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Nicole B GablerDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Mounika KannegantiDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Catherine ReitzDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Chelsea SaiaDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Joseph TeelDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
David A AschDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Kevin G VolppDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Chyke A DoubeniLeonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Funding

Effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in average risk adults: Colonoscopy vs. FITR01CA213645 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI CORLEY, DOUGLAS ALLEN, DOUBENI, CHYKE ABADAMA · 2017 to 2021
$3.2M
Behavioral Economics and Population-based Colorectal Cancer ScreeningK08CA234326 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MEHTA, SHIVAN JATIN · 2018 to 2022
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA234326NCI NIH HHS R01 CA213645
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Mailing fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits to patients' homes has been shown to boost colorectal cancer screening rates, but response rates remain limited, and organized programs typically require repeated outreach attempts. Behavioral economics has shown that offering salient financial incentives to patients may increase participation in preventive health. Objective: To compare the impact of different financial incentives for mailed FIT outreach. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 4-parallel-arm randomized clinical trial included patients aged 50 to 75 years who had an established primary care clinician, at least 2 visits in the prior 2 years, and were eligible for colorectal cancer screening and not up-to-date. This study was conducted at urban primary care practices at an academic health system from December 2015 to February 2018. Data analysis was conducted from March 2018 to September 2018. Interventions: Eligible patients received a letter from their primary care clinician that included a mailed FIT kit and instructions for use. They were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive (1) no financial incentive; (2) an unconditional $10 incentive included with the mailing; (3) a $10 incentive conditional on FIT completion; or (4) a conditional lottery with a 1-in-10 chance of winning $100 after FIT completion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Fecal immunochemical test completion within 2 and 6 months of initial outreach. Results: A total of 897 participants were randomized, with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range, 52-62 years); 56% were women, and 69% were black. The overall completion rate across all arms was 23.5% at 2 months. The completion rate at 2 months was 26.0% (95% CI, 20.4%-32.3%) in the no incentive arm, 27.2% (95% CI, 21.5%-33.6%) in the unconditional incentive arm, 23.2% (95% CI, 17.9%-29.3%) in the conditional incentive arm, and 17.7% (95% CI, 13.0%-23.3%) in the lottery incentive arm. None of the arms with an incentive were statistically superior to the arm without incentive. The overall FIT completion rate across all arms was 28.9% at 6 months, and there was also no difference by arm. The completion rate at 6 months was 32.7% (95% CI, 26.6%-39.3%) in the no incentive arm, 31.7% (95% CI, 25.7%-38.2%) in the unconditional incentive arm, 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1%-33.1%) in the conditional incentive arm, and 24.3% (95% CI, 18.9%-30.5%) in the lottery incentive arm. Conclusions and Relevance: Mailed FIT resulted in high colorectal cancer screening response rates in this population, but different forms of financial incentives of the same expected value ($10) did not incrementally increase FIT completion rates. The incentive value may have been too small or financial incentives may not be effective in this context. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02594150.

Indexed as

MotivationColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEconomics, BehavioralFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePostal Service

Identifiers

PMID30901053
PMCPMC6583304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.